De'Bey v. The City of New York
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:20-cv-01034
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In De’Bey v. City of New York, Magistrate Judge Cave granted in part and denied in part De’Bey’s motion to file a second amended complaint.
John De’Bey’s lawsuit was permitted to proceed with most proposed amendments, but claims against The New York Foundling and the defamation claim against Elsa Gaston could not be included in the proposed second amended complaint.
What happened
In De’Bey v. The City of New York, John De’Bey, who was representing himself, asked to file a second amended complaint adding a defendant, expanding claims, correcting defendant names, and adding factual details. The proposed complaint concerned alleged actions by city agencies, police and child-services employees, and others involving his children, arrest, detention, and housing matters.
The court allowed most requested changes because amendments are generally allowed when they help resolve claims rather than technical pleading issues. It allowed De’Bey to add Conrad Seivwright, assert additional claims against Elsa Gaston other than defamation, combine certain city entities under the City of New York, remove Caitlyn Hall, and correct or add facts.
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave denied the motion as to claims against The New York Foundling and the defamation claim against Gaston. She required De’Bey to remove those claims, correct the case caption, make other specified corrections, and file the second amended complaint and proof of proper service within 60 days.
The detailed version
- De'Bey v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-01034
- Paul Gardephe
- Sept. 18, 2020
Background
John De’Bey sued the City of New York and other defendants, asserting claims under federal civil-rights statutes and state tort law. He alleged that defendants violated his and his family’s constitutional rights in connection with child-welfare investigations and removals, his arrest and detention, a criminal case and plea, access to court proceedings, housing matters, and other events. The opinion states that De’Bey was representing himself.
De’Bey moved for permission to file a second amended complaint. The proposed complaint sought to add Conrad Seivwright as a defendant; add claims against Elsa Gaston; combine improperly named city entities into the City of New York; remove Caitlyn Hall; and correct errors and add factual details. The City took no position on the motion, and the other defendants had not yet appeared.
Ruling on the Proposed Amendments
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, courts generally should allow a party to amend a pleading when justice requires, unless there is a substantial reason such as undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility. Applying that standard, the court granted the motion in part. It allowed De’Bey to:
- add Conrad Seivwright as a defendant; - plead additional claims against Gaston, but not the defamation claim; - consolidate the improperly named County of New York, Administration for Children’s Services, New York City Police Department, and New York City Department of Corrections into the City of New York; - remove Caitlyn Hall as a defendant; and - correct factual errors and add details to the existing allegations.
The court denied the motion as to the claims against The New York Foundling and the defamation claim against Gaston. The New York Foundling had already been voluntarily dismissed, and Judge Gardephe had previously dismissed the defamation claim against Gaston. The court found that the proposed complaint repeated the same allegations and did not fix the problems identified in the earlier dismissal order.
Required Corrections and Deadline
The court also required De’Bey to remove The New York Foundling and the defamation claim against Gaston, correct the caption to include all remaining defendants, and include Detective Stephanie Eiel and New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. separately in the caption if he intended to pursue claims against them. The court gave De’Bey 60 days from the order, until November 17, 2020, to file the corrected second amended complaint and proof that all remaining defendants had been properly served under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave granted in part and denied in part the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. This order addressed permission to amend the pleadings; it did not decide the underlying civil-rights or tort claims.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.